Corporate insolvency resolution process amended with expanded disclosure, guarantor asset transfer rules, and new dissolution and restoration procedur...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2541 to 2560 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory ceiling on adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed repeatedly, yet there was no appearance for the appellant and no request that the matter be decided on merits. As adjournment could not be granted beyond the permitted limit of three times, no further indulgence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Repeated absence of the appellant and the statutory ceiling on adjournments justified dismissal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed repeatedly, yet there was no appearance for the appellant and no request that the matter be decided on merits. As adjournment could not be granted beyond the permitted limit of three times, no further indulgence was warranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
